The Preeminence of Christ in Bible translations

2010 | bibletruth

[bibletruth]

The Preeminence of Christ in Bible translations

[bibletruth]

Bible version comparison regarding the Preeminence of Christ from various verses in the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NWT. (NIV 1984, NASB 1977, NWT 1984 printed editions)

Carefully take note of the preeminence of Christ in the translation of the AV (King James); you will not find this preeminence of Christ inside other non-KJV Bible translations. Why you may ask... well, that will be a discussion post on another day...

Bible Versions and the Preeminence of Christ

	AV (King James)	New International	New American Standard	New World Translation
Mt 1:25	firstborn son	a son	a Son	a son
Mt 8:29	Jesus, thou Son of God	Son of God	Son of God	Son of God
Mt 13:51	Yea, Lord	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mt 16:20	Jesus the Christ	the Christ	the Christ	the Christ
Mk 9:24	Lord, I believe	I do believe	I do believe	I have faith
Mk 11:10	that cometh in the name of the Lord	coming	coming	coming
Lk 4:41	Thou art Christ the Son of God	You are the Son of God	You are the Son of God	You are the Son of God
Lk 7:31	the Lord said	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED
Lk 22:31	the Lord said	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED
Lk 23:42	he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me	Jesus, remember me	Jesus, remember me	Jesus, remember me
Jn 4:42	the Christ, the Saviour	the Savior	the Savior	the Savior
Jn 6:69	Christ, the Son of the Living God	Holy One of God	Holy One of God	Holy One of God
Jn 9:35	Son of God	Son of Man	Son of Man	Son of man
Ac 16:31	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus
Ro 1:16	gospel of Christ	gospel	gospel	good news
1Co 15:47	the second man is the Lord from heaven	the second man from heaven	the second man is from heaven	the second man is out of heaven
1Co 16:22	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord	Lord	Lord
1Co 16:23	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus
2Co 4:6	Jesus Christ	Christ	Christ	Christ
2Co 5:18	Jesus Christ	Christ	Christ	Christ
2Co 11:31	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus
Eph 3:9	created all things by Jesus Christ	created all things	created all things	created all things
Eph 3:14	Father of our Lord Jesus Christ	Father	Father	Father
Co 1:2	Lord Jesus Christ	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED
Co 1:28	Christ Jesus	Christ	Christ	Christ
1Th 2:19	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus
1Th 3:11	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Jesus	Jesus our Lord	Lord Jesus
1Th 3:13	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus
2Th 1:8	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus	Lord Jesus
1Ti 2:7	truth in Christ	truth	truth	truth
2Ti 4:1	Lord Jesus Christ	Christ Jesus	Christ Jesus	Christ Jesus
He 3:1	Christ Jesus	Jesus	Jesus	Jesus
1Pe 5:10	Christ Jesus	Christ	Christ	Christ
1Jo 1:7	Jesus Christ	Jesus	Jesus	Jesus

[ColdSteelTalon]

Everything I have seen regarding other Bible versions than the KJV reduce the Deity of Christ to a New Age view equating Christ with for example Lord Krishna. Westcott and Hort are roasting in hell right now, and their corrupt Greek text is used in every modern translation...

[bibletruth]

Correct...ping...

Is is a truth but very sad to know that Westcott and Hort and their corrupt Greek texts are used in every modern translation...

It is a corruption to say that just because something is older that it is more accurate...Absolutely false...there are many examples in man's history that disprove that claim...why should this be when it involves the very Words of Christ! The AV | KJV greet texts are absolutely correct and need no other so called correction in the English translation. The men who translated the KJV were scholars well above today's poor example of scholars; many of whom deny Christ outright!

Another point. The Words of Christ are not limited to the red-letters. That line of thinking is an abomination because every word in the Bible is the Words of Christ - He and the Holy Ghost are the author of all the Words. And that includes Genesis through Revelation; not just the Gospels.

[One Name]

I have always been a great fan of the Authorized Version, the KJV.

At one point it was the most published book on the planet; it may still be.

I figured that God had made it available to the whole earth, so that in the day of judgement there can be no excuse.

Its literary beauty also transcends time. It mat be somewhat difficult to render properly given the archaic form, but God is well able to provide the key to unlocking the scriptures to even the simplest of us.

I am reminded of tales of slaves who could read nothing else but the Bible.

I COR:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

[bibletruth]

Yes, the KJV | AV has long been considered a preeminent literary of the English language; and this proof is well near 400 years of beauty and literary that has transcended its time. Many pastors quote from the KJV, but read from a corrupt translation...

It mat be somewhat difficult to render properly given the archaic form

In actuality, the so called archaic words (critics terminology, which I reject), is not hard to understand when we learn of the context of the verses we are reading and use; and we should keep a copy of Crabb's Synonyms to know why certain words are chosen.

The "ye", "you", "thou", "thee", "thine", etc, are actually more accurate in grammatical terms, for these terms easily distinguish the Nominative, Objective, Genitive, and Possessive. The so called "modern" usage disguises this grammar distinction (although not entirely).

Excellent quote to demonstrate that not many wise men (Scholars) after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called by God before the Foundation of the World.

I Corinthians: 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

[Elsiejay]

There is a version of the Holy Bible, the name of which I cannot right now bring to mind (Good News something or other, I belive), that consistently and assiduously refuses to teach that God justifies, saying instead that God “approves.”
Shun it.

[One Name]

I appreciate your response- I am not a scholar by any stretch but when God revealed Himself and the truth of Jesus’ sacrifice to me a lowly sinner my life was changed forever.

Try as I might to deny the Cross, he keeps me near.

God bless you! The KJV is beauty in an ugly world....

[rawhide]

How does the NKJV compare to the KJV, using the chart you posted?

[One Name]

I am leery of modern translations. I do have a 6-translation NT I used to use to try to grasp the meaning of some obscure passages.

Then I got married and had kids and a farm and I am just now trying to find my way home.

[bibletruth]

I will put a chart comparison and post it for AV | KJV and NKJV.

Basically, the NKJV uses the same greek texts, but the NKJV does basically omit some words...

to be continued...

[bibletruth]

Be very careful when trying to grasp the meaning of some obscure passages...by using other modern translations.

Generally, using modern translations together with the study of the AV | KJV will only continue to obscure the meaning of said passages and create confusion as to what God really said.

It is better advise to study the immediate context of the passage, then re-read, then re-read, then ask yourself questions like, "who is this passage to", "why is God providing us with this passage", "what doctrine is being introduced", "why is this topic introduced here and now".

[MrPiper]

Then I got married and had kids and a farm and I am just now trying to find my way home.

Read or download and listen to: The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright, I'm at peace with my search now.

[dan1123]

Don’t get too comfortable with KJV as the only Bible translation you go to.

Here’s a part of what John MacArthur wrote on the subject:

It is very interesting to note that there are about 290 differences between the “textus receptus” and the King James Version. Let me illustrate.

1. Note in Romans 12:11 where the TR has “serving in season” but KJV, along with all modern versions, has “serving the Lord.”

2. In I Thessalonians 2:15, the TR has the pronoun “you” while the KJV, along with all other modern versions, has the pronoun “us.”

3. The King James Version in Revelation 11:1 has the reading, “And the angels stood.” The TR, along with all modern versions, does not include this phrase.

4. If you read 1 John 2:23 in the KJV, you note that the translators included in italics the phrase, “But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” It is omitted in the TR but included as a part of the text in most modern versions.

5. Luke 17:36, “Two men shall be in the field; and one shall be taken, the other left” is included in the King James Version but it is omitted in the TR and all other modern versions.

6. Matthew 23:24 is a humorous example of a printing error, not a translation error. The King James Version reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” It’s obvious to everyone that the word “at” should be “out.”

7. The problem of 1 John 5:7-8 was discussed in the lengthy letter earlier so we won’t discuss it here.

8. In Revelation 22:1 9, both the TR and the King James Version have the phrase, “Book of Life.” That phrase is not found in any Greek manuscript, rather “tree of life” is the only text. Erasmus translated the last six verses from the Latin Vulgate because his Greek manuscript lacked these verses. Just a final note. Even the KJV translators did not claim for their work what modern promoters insist. The original translators at times were uncertain of the correct variant and made marginal notes to indicate other possibilities. In the preface to the original KJV, the editors acknowledged the profit from other versions. Here is what they wrote:

“Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded.”

Whole article here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/kjv.htm

[RaceBannon]

it would be more informative to show the greek text that the verse is translated from for each example

Yeah, I know, harder to search for...but just once I wish the people who make these comparisons would add the original text so people can see if a word is added or taken back by each English translation.

[RaceBannon]

remember, though, the KJV has undergone almost 100 updates and corrections since it came out, to include removing the Aporapha from it

Worshipping a translation is not the same as worshipping what it says and the God it points to. Too many people claim that the English translation is divinely inspired, does that mean the Spanish translation isn’t?

How about the Urdu translation? Is that divinely inspired?

:)

[Godzilla]

**********
Yeah, I know, harder to search for...but just once I wish the people who make these comparisons would add the original text so people can see if a word is added or taken back by each English translation.
**********

The issue, though not apparent from the article, is the use by the KJV of the Textus Receptius MS versus the Alexandrian MS. If you want to compare the two versions, search the verse here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm

and click on the “C” box to the left of the verse reference. TR will be on top, and GNT on the bottom of the expanded verse

Quick review of the verses cited above shows that the changes are differences between the two ms - and not translation issues.

[One Name]

I appreciate your concern; this is a text I bought 30 -some years ago- supposedly had a greek scholarly translation as one of the 6. I’ll have to dig it out.

I was on a greek kick for awhile but couldn’t hang what with life and all.

I know, not a good excuse but the only one I have.

[One Name]

I don’t worship a translation, but I am comfortable with the KJV (dance with the one that brung ya)

Obviously for believers, God has extended salvation to the entire planet. How many tongues is that?

Some people don’t have a written language. Are they excluded?

Luke 12:48
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

[One Name]

I don’t worship a translation, but I am comfortable with the KJV (dance with the one that brung ya)

Obviously for believers, God has extended salvation to the entire planet. How many tongues is that?

Some people don’t have a written language. Are they excluded?

Luke 12:48
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

[John Locke]

I think you pretty much sum it up. The KJV is largely faithful to the TR; Westcott & Hort looked at many different texts, and usually gave preference to the older. But to the issue raised in the post.

First, are there any substantive differences in meaning between the versions? The answer - which you'll find in the appendices to W&H - is, not many. Mostly, it's a word here and a word there.

Secondly, why the differences? I think most of them arose in the first two centuries AD, and mostly for the same reason. The original texts were written to be read by literate individuals, look at Luke for the obvious example. But as the Christian community grew, the holy texts were increasingly read aloud, to the illiterate slaves and peasants in their (often secret) meetings.

Now, when a text is read aloud, it is natural to add a word here and there. A reader can look back, so after reading "...and then he said..." is quite able to go back two sentences and check that the antecedent is "Jesus". But when the same lesson is read aloud, it is only common sense to revise it "...and then Jesus said...", since the audience can't look back. And of course, there is no change in meaning.

If you refer back at the list in the post, most of the differences are exactly of this form - a few words, but no significant change of meaning.

Finally, who is right? Obviously, both are "right" in an academic sense. But the KJV was "appointed to be read in churches", was it not? That is, to be read aloud. So the translator's use of the TR is stylistically correct - as 400 years of history have abundantly proved. Of the doctrinal correctness of the KJV, after having read the NT in Greek for almost 50 years, I remain fully convinced.